Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, Applicant now provides “and wherein the line of weakness is positioned in the rigid film comprising the cavity of the package body”. Applicant has failed to make clear what element comprising refers to (such as either weakness or film). Claims 2-16 is/are rejected as being dependent on the above rejected claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mueller (US 6670023 B2)
The Office notes the 112 rejections above. Mueller discloses:
A formed article (figs 1-7) comprising: a packaging body (10 and body of 10, such as with 28 and 18) comprising a rigid film comprising a thickness and a line of weakness (adjacent 52, 50, 42 with 40s; where an individual 40 is a line of weakness and also the exists a line along the 40s that it is also weaker to other portions of the device and is therefore also a line of weakness); a liner film (44); and a cavity (space within the device such as boundary formed by 28 and 18); wherein the rigid film and the liner film are joined to each other (As in fig 1-7); and wherein the line of weakness is positioned in the rigid film comprising the cavity of the package body (the Office notes the 112 rejection above; nevertheless, the prior discloses the above as in figs 2, 3, as the cavity is the space defined above).
2. The formed article of claim 1, further comprising a flange, wherein the line of weakness comprises a length from a point on the flange to an opposing point on the flange (Adjacent 22 where 40s extend across from flange to flange).
3. The formed article of claim 1, wherein the line of weakness comprises a depth, and wherein the depth of the line of weakness is less than or equal to the thickness of the rigid film (As in fig 5).
4. The formed article of claim1, wherein the line of weakness comprises at least one of a cut, a series of perforations and a score (as in fig 5 which includes a cut, a series of perforations as well as a score).
5. The formed article of claim1, wherein the line of weakness comprises a tapered curved profile having an angle between opposing edges in a range from 2 degrees to 90 degrees. The Office notes that a change in shape and angle of the perforations would change the rate of desired air flow depending on the desired contents in the device. Furthermore, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape because it has been held that a change in form or shape on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
6. The formed article of claim1, further comprising an additional film, wherein the additional film is joined to the liner film opposite to the rigid film (adjacent 46).
7. The formed article of claim 6, wherein the additional film comprises a thickness equal to or less than the thickness of the rigid film (as in fig 5).
8. The formed article of claim 6because it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
9. The formed article of claim 1, wherein the rigid film comprises one or more of amorphous polyester (APET), crystalline polyester (CPET), olefin-based materials, polystyrene, and polylactic acid (PLA) (polystyrene col. 16: 33 – col. 17: 20; though not required the Office merely notes that It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material because it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416
).
10. The formed article of laim1, wherein the liner film comprises at least one of ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) (HDPE and EVOH in col. 16: 33 – col. 17: 20; though not required the Office merely notes that It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material because it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
12. The formed article of laim1 wherein the liner film comprises a barrier material (materials in col. 16: 33 – col. 17: 20 are barrier materials).
13. The formed article of laim1, wherein a bond strength between the rigid film and the liner film is greater than or equal to 50 g/25.4 mm. The Office notes that it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above in order to enhance the attachment between the elements. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the above value, because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
14. The formed article of laim1, further comprising a lidding component (adjacent 48).
15. The formed article of laim1, wherein the line of weakness is centrally positioned along a length of the rigid film (central weakness in fig 2 for example).
16. The formed article of laim1, wherein a material of the rigid film and a material of the liner film have different recycling profiles (based on the materials of col. 16: 33 – col. 17: 20 the above elements would have different recycling profiles, such as if one recyclable material is selected for one and another recyclable materials is selected for another).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the fact that is it well known to provide that the liner film further comprises a compatibilizer is taken to be admitted prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made in view of Applicant's admitted prior art provide that the liner film further comprises a compatibilizer in order to enhance the stabilization of the device. The Office notes that a device that includes enhanced stabilization will enhance the protection of the intended contents of the device.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (US 7208215 B2)
The Office notes that a change in shape and angle of the perforations would change the rate of desired air flow depending on the desired contents in the device. Furthermore, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape because it has been held that a change in form or shape on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The Office notes that if there is any question to the above and in order to expedite prosecution for Applicant, the Office notes that Lin discloses a tapered curved profile having an angle between opposing edges in a range from 2 degrees to 90 degrees (as shown for example adjacent 151 in figs 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Mueller in view of Lin (by providing the above shape and range) to control the flow to a desired rate in order to effect the contents in the desired manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered, but are moot because in view of the amendment the search has been updated, new prior art has been identified and a new rejection has been made. Nevertheless, Applicant states that the prior art does not disclose the new amendment in claim 1. In claim 1, Applicant now provides “and wherein the line of weakness is positioned in the rigid film comprising the cavity of the package body”. Applicant has failed to make clear what element comprising refers to (such as either weakness or film). Claims 2-16 is/are rejected as being dependent on the above rejected claim(s). Mueller also discloses A formed article (figs 1-7) comprising: a packaging body (10 and body of 10, such as with 28 and 18) comprising a rigid film comprising a thickness and a line of weakness (adjacent 52, 50, 42 with 40s; where an individual 40 is a line of weakness and also the exists a line along the 40s that it is also weaker to other portions of the device and is therefore also a line of weakness); a liner film (44); and a cavity (space within the device such as boundary formed by 28 and 18); wherein the rigid film and the liner film are joined to each other (As in fig 1-7); and wherein the line of weakness is positioned in the rigid film comprising the cavity of the package body (the Office notes the 112 rejection above; nevertheless, the prior discloses the above as in figs 2, 3, as the cavity is the space defined above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D PERREAULT whose telephone number is (571)270-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW D PERREAULT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735